CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 132Corruption and Economic DevelopmentPublic Procurement and PolicyPublic Policy and Administration Research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 78 of the 80 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Lights on the shadows of public procurement: Transparency as an antidote to corruption

Bauhr, Monika, Czibik, Ágnes, de Fine Licht, Jenny, Fazekas, Mihály·2020·Governance
DOI 10.1111/gove.12432
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The increased focus on marketizing mechanisms and contracting‐out operations following the New Public Management reform agenda has sparked a debate on whether the close interactions between public and private actors might drive corruption in the public sector. The main response to those worries has been increased transparency, but so far empirical evidence of its efficiency remains scant and mixed. This article argues that the beneficial effects of transparency on corruption are contingent on type of transparency, and in particular, who the intended receiver of the information is. Drawing on newly collected data of more than 3.5 million government contracts between 2006 and 2015, the analysis shows that overall tender transparency reduces corruption risks substantially, yet that the effect is largely driven by ex ante transparency, that is, transparency that allows for horizontal monitoring by insiders in the bidding process.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/gove.12432

Cites

78 of 78 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 80 references

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. 10.1162/003355302320935061 · DOI
  2. Brandeis L. D., 1913, What publicity can do, Harper's Weekly
  3. Fazekas M., 2016, Assessing the potential for detecting collusion in Swedish public procurement
  4. Fazekas M., 2017, The effectiveness of the European Union in safeguarding competition in public procurement markets. GTI‐WP/2017:04
  5. Grimmelikhuijsen S., 2012, Transparency & Trust: An experimental study of online disclosure and Trust in Government

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 132

Related

Metadata

Authors
Bauhr, M., Czibik, Á., de Fine Licht, J., & Fazekas, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Gothenburg (SE)
  • Government Transparency Institute
  • University of Gothenburg
  • Central European University (AT)
ORCID
Venue
Governance
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2019-08-13
Volume
33
Issue
3
Pages
495-523
ISSN
  • 0952-1895 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-0491
DOI
10.1111/gove.12432
OpenAlex
W2967037639
Cited by
131
References
80
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 32 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 1
FWCI
17.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
Governance (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Corruption and Economic Development
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Public Procurement and Policy
  • Social Sciences › Public Administration › Public Policy and Administration Research
Keywords
public procurement, corruption, transparency, New Public Management, outsourcing, public-private relations

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review